An axiomatic value of every human being is life

First Unitarian Universalist Society of Albany
"On the Beginning and Ending of Life"
Rev. Samuel A. Trumbore December 9, 2001

SERMON

Every human being values life. No matter what language is used to speak our beliefs, no matter in what culture those beliefs find their expression in worship, everywhere life is greatly valued and revered. We have complete agreement on this. Now, I don't want to sound like I'm disrespecting inanimate objects but I think everyone values that which is alive more than that which is not alive. I'm afraid sometimes people get confused on this and value objects like gold and guns more than other people. And, come to think of it, I guess I value my tie over the living bacteria and dust mites that may now be making my tie their home Still, the ethical analysis is unambiguous. We value people before things. Where we have disagreement is defining when an individual life acquires that value and when it loses that value.

Abortion, cloning and stem cell research have challenged us to figure out when a potential for human life becomes valuable and worth protection. Advances in medical technology have forced us to ponder when the value of a life ends even if the organism continues to exist. It is on the edges of life that we struggle with what to value. My goal this morning is to bring clarity to those who are confused and new questions to those who think they understand these issues clearly.

A good place to begin is with definitions. What separates that which is alive from that which is not alive? Time for a short course in biology. Currently, there are four categories of things we classify as alive. First there are the familiar one-celled bacteria that overrun our planet. The total weight of all the bacteria on Earth is greater than the combined weight of every other living thing on the planet!

Second are all the organisms that contain cells with a nucleus and specialized structures within the cell boundaries such as chloroplasts and mitochondria. Third are the recently added archaeabacteria that live in extremely hostile habitats like thermal volcanic vents, saline pools, and hot springs. Finally we have viruses which some question whether they are actually alive or not.

What qualities do they all share? A basic requirement is high molecular complexity. Every living thing reproduces itself. Each has the ability to use energy for the purposes of transformation. While viruses do not have the ability to metabolize food, they do consume the host cell they invade for reproduction. Everything that is alive has some kind of homeostasis that allows it to retain and maintain definable boundaries and regulate internal processes, generate biomass and create waste. Over time, entities grow and develop. Living things have mechanisms, primitive as they may be, to adapt to change. Even viruses participate in the evolutionary engine of mutation and natural selection.

Using this criteria, sperms and eggs don't quite meet the criteria for being alive. They can't reproduce themselves. They can't metabolize food. They don't grow and change over time. Yet to watch sperm under a microscope lashing their tails desperately seeking an egg, one can only be awed by the passion of life to exist. And when the two do meet, a truly profound process is initiated.

Someplace between the moment before egg and sperm meet and the first breath of a newborn baby, this individual life process acquires tremendous value. Many of the controversies around stem cell research have to do with determining when a collection of cells attains the status of personhood.

First, let me add two great high tech words to your vocabulary: Pluripotential and totipotential. Pluripotential is a twentieth century adjective describing plasticity (another twentieth century word). A pluripotent cell is not fixed in its developmental possibilities. It could be a skin cell, or a liver cell or bone marrow cell. Totipotential is another twentieth century adjective that describes the capability of developing into a complete organism or differentiating into any of its cells or tissues.

The transition from totipotential to pluripotential cells is very important in our ethical analysis. The first cell division occurs approximately 36 hours after fertilization, when the fertilized egg begins to cleave into two cells called blastomeres. At about 60 hours following fertilization, the two blastomeres divide again to form four blastomeres. At three days postfertilization, the four blastomeres divide to form eight cells. Each blastomere becomes smaller with each subsequent division. These first cells are totipotential. One or more of the blastomeres can be removed without affecting the ability of the other blastomeres to develop into a fetus. In fact, if an embryo separates in half during this early stage of cell division, identical twins—two genetically identical individuals—will develop.

This developing collection of cells is called a zygote. After reaching the uterus three to four days following fertilization, the developing zygote usually remains in the uterine cavity an additional four to five days before it implants in the uterine wall. The first cell specialization event occurs just before the zygote attaches to the uterus, when approximately 100 cells have developed. This specialization involves the formation of an outer layer of trophoblast cells, which will give rise to part of the placenta, surrounding a group of about 20 to 30 inner cells (called the inner cell mass) that remain undifferentiated. At this stage, these inner cells are pluripotent. They can no longer give rise to all of the cells necessary to form an entire organism and therefore are incapable of developing into an entire human being. In general, as cells further differentiate, they lose the capacity to enter developmental pathways that were previously open to them. It is these pluripotent cells that can be cultured, creating immortal cell lines that can then be used for stem cell research.

Science can minutely observe, measure, define and predict this developmental process but it cannot tell us what the value of this process is or whether or not it should be interrupted, interfered with or harvested. The people who accept responsibility to give us these answers are our theologians.

The National Bioethics Advisory Committee created by President Clinton issued a report in June of 2000 titled: Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research. Volume III of the report records the testimony of various religious perspectives and makes for interesting reading (and is available on the web) recording Jewish, Christian and Islamic reflections on this question.

The most resistant to stem cell research are the Orthodox Christians. Father Demetrios Demopulos, a Greek Orthodox priest testified:

We believe that this process toward authentic human personhood begins with the zygote. Whether created in situ or in vitro, a zygote is committed to a developmental course that will, with God’s grace, ultimately lead to a human person. The embryo and the adult are both potential human persons, although in different stages of development. As a result, Orthodox Christians affirm the sanctity of human life at all stages of development.

Even though not yet a human person, an embryo should not be used for or sacrificed in experimentation, no matter how noble the goal may seem. For me, then, the derivation

of embryonic stem cell lines is immoral because it sacrificed human embryos, which were committed to becoming human persons. That the embryos donated for this work were not going to be implanted and had no chance of completing their development cannot mitigate the fact that they should not have been created.

Officially, Roman Catholics join their orthodox brothers and sisters in condemning harvesting embryonic stem cells. The respected medical ethicist, Dr. Edward Pelligrino of Georgetown University, argues that we need not even be forced to look to embryos as a source of stem cells since they can be harvested from adult donors arguing an immortal cell is an immortal cell.

But there isn't complete agreement among the Catholics. One of their controversies surrounds another source of stem cells - aborted fetuses. Especially in the case of spontaneous abortion or miscarriage, harvesting cells could be morally good. Dr. Margaret Farley of Yale University explains:

A growing number of Catholic moral theologians … do not consider the human embryo in its earliest stages (prior to the development of the primitive streak [of cells that will become the spine] or [prior] to implantation) to constitute an individualized human entity with the settled inherent potential to become a human person. The moral status of the embryo is, therefore (in this view), not that of a person, and its use for certain kinds of research can be justified.

The Islamic perspective comes from Quranic interpretation as there is no authoritative body or person like the Pope who can make a pronouncement on what all Muslims believe. What can be deduced from the Prophet's words is that the embryonic journey must be seen developmentally. Ensoulment doesn't happen, in their view, until the fourth month of pregnancy. This is the time that the first movements can be felt in the womb. Up until that time, its personhood has not been established. Thus for the Sunni and Shi'ite jurists, there is no problem endorsing ethically regulated research provided that the expected therapeutic benefits are not simply speculative.

These potential therapeutic benefits are the determining factor for Jewish Theologians. Genetic materials outside the uterus have no legal status in Jewish law, for they are not even a part of a human being until implanted in a woman’s womb, and even then, during the first 40 days of gestation, their status is “as if they were simply water.” The argument for stem cell research can be made from its potential to save lives rather than the embryo's right to exist. Dr. Laurie Zoloth of San Francisco State University presented this argument:

[The justification for this research] stems largely from the defining moment in the Talmud in which the rabbinic authorities debate whether one can violate the mandate to rest and to sanctify the Sabbath in order to rescue a man trapped in the rubble of a collapsed building. From this vivid (and, I might add, graphically obvious) source text springs a whole set of cases that are then defined as like being trapped—by illness, catastrophe, hunger, war, or threat. This has provided the warrant text for virtually all experimental therapy, including genetic research…Hence, even if otherwise proscribed actions are involved (taking the organs of the dead, for example), the use is permitted if [a] life can be reliably saved. Jewish medical ethics is nearly entirely constructed around the principle of pikuach nefesh, to save a life. To save even one life… is permissible, and in fact mandated, that all other mitzvot can be abrogated …Using this consideration alone, the technology could be considered ethical.

What do Unitarian Universalists say about stem cell research? I was interested to read that our new President, Bill Sinkford, decided to make a pronouncement on the subject last month. Anticipating debate at our yearly meeting in June, he said: "Because I do not consider human embryos to be people, and because Unitarian Universalists insist that reproduction is a personal and private matter, I believe that there should be no ban on embryonic stem cell research."

What do I think? I too am a strong supporter of stem cell research but I'd like to argue the case slightly differently than any of these theologians have. I'm not worried about whether a zygote has a soul or not because I believe that all living things have soul and even inert substance has soul capacity. I believe soul or, alternately expressed, personhood, is an emergent phenomenon of systemic complexity. From the atom to the person, I see no demarcation where the Spirit of Life starts or stops. My body is full of calcium, magnesium, iron, water and gaseous molecules. Are they dead or part of a living system. Just about everything you see around you has been part of a living system at one time or another.

So to focus on a little collection of cells in a petri dish and give it the status of personhood is roughly parallel to holding a tiny seed in a handful of dirt and giving it the same status as a flower. Yes, the potentiality is there in both cases but not the reality.

The second perspective that must be added is balancing the value of the community with the value of the individual. This planet cannot support an infinite number of people. Clearly every egg and every sperm do not have the right to unite and grow into adulthood. The fact that they might find each other in a petri dish doesn't give them the right to be born. These extra blastocysts are wonderful potential embryos for infertile couples interested in adopting them but we must never confuse a potential person with an actual person.

The vitality of personhood grows with the fetus until it is born and I believe continues to grow and change throughout its life. In one aboriginal culture with a high infant mortality rate, children were not even named until they'd completed a year of life. Changes in personhood status are formally recognized for children in many religions as they mature into adults. Our personhood might peak with economic success, social responsibility and status, creative expression, political power, and/or religious insight and practice. And at the end of life as one's faculties and health begin to decline, there can be a parallel sense of decline in personhood status, particularly in the final days of a terminal illness. I'm arguing that personhood isn't a discrete state. It isn't a yes or no choice. It is a pluripotent state that is constantly in flux till we take our last breath.

Using this definition of personhood offers a reason to grow throughout our lives. Adding value to our personhood is reflected in the quality of our lives. Making real our potential personhood is what this congregation is all about. This is what we mean when we say in the chalice lighting: We gather to excite the human spirit and inspire its growth and development. Our personhood can continue to gain value till the end of our lives compensating to some degree for the inevitable physical decline that comes with aging. And I fully expect stem cell research will extend our personhood by providing effective treatments for some of those conditions.

Stem cell research is just the beginning of the many bioethical challenges ahead of us. Cloning will be particularly vexing as that technology becomes viable. Add to that, the day when Bicentennial Man style robots are smarter than we are, figure out how to make copies of themselves and demand personhood. Then we'll need to redefine what it means to be alive. The will to be is extremely powerful. That energy to my mind is holy and merits our encouragement and protection. Stem cell research opens another avenue for this living energy, this spirit if you will, to express itself in the world.

Where we must be extremely cautious is determining how we use the new knowledge we acquire.

BENEDICTION

The Spirit of Life's intense drive
            to animate the material world is unstoppable.
It seeks greater and greater complexity
            and greater and greater diversity.
We are created in its image
            and our creative energy springs from the same source.
Natural selection will determine if we become gods or ghosts.
May we use our spirit filled creative energy wisely
            seeking the good of all living and non-living beings.

Go in peace. Make peace. Be at Peace.